[KTM rider]

Please correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that according to the constitution , the (Democrat) Party is solely responsible for vetting the candidate. And there is no mandate that the party must demand proof of eligibility. However,that would make the Democrat Party the responsible party, not Obama

Can the plaintiff sue the Democrat Party to show proof ?

[OneWingedShark]

The Constitution does NOT mention parties, nor vetting; therefore, every citizen can challenge a Presidential nominee on eligibility grounds. It would be tiring if you had to do it in private with everyone instead of just making it publicly available.

[Safrguns]

...according to the constitution , the (Democrat) Party is solely responsible for vetting the candidate. And there is no mandate that the party must demand proof of eligibility.

The "responsibility" of the party is to it's members, not the country... and the consequences of that party failing in that responsibility is having it's candidate for office rejected at the congressional level.

"Mandates" can be legally presumed from procedural law that guides the process of verification... but a political party cannot be held responsible for the fraud perpetrated by an individual... because it has no means of independent verification (no direct access to personal information)

Can the plaintiff sue the Democrat Party to show proof ?

Nobody can be sued to show proof of anything.
Evidence must be obtained and presented that shows that a law has been broken (The burden of proof is and should always be on the accuser)
In order to sue the Democrat Party, evidence of a crime is required.

Congress is "responsible" for ensuring the legitimacy of the electoral college results. Congressional responsibility is to the voters AND to the other two branches of government. Failure to properly discharge it's duties results in the consequence of individual representatives being subject to recall by the voters, or the very actions of the congress being overruled or reversed by another branch of government.

The democrat party gambled on the presumption that congress would not be willing to face the political consequences of PROPERLY following the law which would have required that their candidate be rejected (giving Mcain the victory by default or forcing the vote into congress).

The democrat party won that gamble.

The democratic controlled congress gambled that the Supreme Court would not be willing to suffer the political consequences of rejecting the first African/American president as a matter of legal challenge under the constitution.

Congress won that gamble.

If God Himself can be sued, (and He has been), then anyone or anything can be sued. That doesn't mean that justice will be properly served.

The Supreme Court has already been given the opportunity to resolve this issue, and they punted.

The Supreme Court itself is therefore equally liable and responsible for the fact that our current president is illegitimate.

So how do you sue the Supreme Court?... you dont.

And what is the consequence of the Supreme Court failing to uphold the constitution???

YOUR FREEDOM!